This may make me seem heartless, but when I hear some retard dying on the news from falling off a cliff for a selfie or something, I'm not that sad about it. At least they don't pass on their moronic ideas
Now, I'm not saying that we just round up and kill off all the stupid people. That would be cruel and heartless... not to mention the massive controversy it would stir up.
What I would like to put forward, is to simply remove the vast majority of warning labels out there and just let natural selection do its thing.
Awail instead of awail. I'm not a grammar nazi, but I never heard of the word and had a hard time to look it up and to find out. So thank you for teaching me a new word in English
And it's not something individuals "build up", it's a gene (or several genes) that some individuals in the population already have. In the case of pesticides, those individuals are the fittest and have more offspring, over time resulting in a resistant population. In the case of modern medicine however, the people that are resistant to meds are not the fittest and die because they can't be treated with medicines (very oversimplified, but you get what I mean). So we probably won't have a human population that's resistant to medicines anytime soon.
We are losing the battle against bacterial infection... because of money. It is becoming less profitable to come up with better antibiotics... so business are becoming less interested in keep up with the ever evolving bacteria. We have the ability, but not the motivation. You can look it up "Why antibiotics are losing the war against bacteria"
5Reply
deleted
· 8 years ago
I think modern medicine proves that human evolution has far outstripped "natural" evolution.
When you've evolved to the point where you can identify a disease and then treat it based on that knowledge, you've earned the right to go beyond natural selection
As a species, though, we're retaining more varieties of genetics - which is going to include some non-beneficial ones, yes, but the species that survive a major environmental shift are the species that can afford more genetic variety. What's beneficial in our current climate may not, in fact, be beneficial under environmental change, or even more difficult to tell, a non-desirable trait may be genetically linked to a potentially desirable trait.
An instance of the first phenomenon: It's theorized that Seasonal Affective Disorder and ADHD, while extremely disadvantageous in our current environment, are potentially prized survival traits in a hunter-gatherer society. SAD ensures that you stay in safe areas and conserve calories during leaner months, and ADHD is absolutely beautiful both for noticing as many small phenomena as possible - for instance, the slight movement of a bird you might be interested in eating - and for focusing directly on the hunt for the two minutes you need to.
Here's another one to consiter:
I've heard that about 1 in 20 humans are genuinely "nocturnal" or have very nocturnal like traits, if you want to argue the diurnal cycle of humans.
It's hypothesized that it's because the extended family groups of early humans was about 20. It stands to reason you need one to stand watch at night.
Nah it's religion that's stopping the evolution of humanity.
Without Christianity, no offense to anyone, we would be much more knowledgeable and intellectually evolved, as well as we'd know much more about history
And how do you deduce that? We could go ahead and say that we would be much kinder, less racist, and more peaceful if it weren't for the implications of the false idea of evolution.
1
deleted
· 8 years ago
In the dark ages, the catholic church oppressed the common people. They were immensely powerful and because they controlled education, it remained that way. The church kept the commoners ignorant because they would be easier to control that way. Without that, we may have had many scientific breakthroughs a lot sooner.
Would you care to explain how evolution makes peole less kind and peaceful, and more racist?
Well yes there are negative sides of all religions, and I am not Catholic so I do not believe what they believe. IMO what they did Was wrong. But then again there are many cases in the Bible of selfish screw-ups by people.
Now, evolution (which is the basis of atheism) is a belief that fully implies racism. If we evolved from apes, surely black people are less evolved, right? That would make white people the most evolved. Surely we should try to be more evolved, so we should eliminate the least evolved? And if atheism were true, how do we tell right fron wrong? We have no higher authority other than us; therefore Man is God. I could say I will shoot you in 5 minutes, and that would be perfectly good; who is to say I am wrong?
Hitler believed in evolution. He thought Jews were the least evolved, so he killed 6 million of them to further human evolution. That was not kind and was very racist. He basically started World War Two, so that is not peaceful. Evolution, which is the foundation of atheism, is not peaceful nor kind, and it encourages racism.
▼
deleted
· 8 years ago
The basis of atheism is not evolution. Atheism is simply not believing in a god or god, and has nothing to do with evolution. Atheists usually are evolutionists because they don't believe a god created people, but you don't have to be an evolutionist to be an atheist, you can just say you don't know.
3
deleted
· 8 years ago
Also, we did not evolve from apes, we share a common ancestor with them. I also don't understand why you conclude that black people are therefore less evolved. Kind of a racist statement on your part if you ask me. Black people are not more or less evolved than white people, and humans are not more or less evolved than apes, or any other species. We simply evolved differently.
4
deleted
· 8 years ago
The "without religion there's no morality" argument is not true. I do not believe in a god, yet I do have a sense of right and wrong. This is something all humans have, with the exception of psycopaths/sociopaths (I forget which one). If you shoot me in five minutes, the law will say you are wrong, as well as (hopefully) your own sense of morality.
3
deleted
· 8 years ago
Whether or not Hitler was religious is actually unknown; some say he was an atheist, others claim he was always a christian. Even if he was an atheist, that does not make the whole of atheism bad. Are all muslims bad because of a few extremists? I think not. Hitler did see jews as sub-human, but this does not mean that evolutionist also believe this. This is not evolution, this is fascism. World War 2 would have happened without Hitler too, as Germany was still unhappy with the rest of Europe for screwing them over. If not Hitler, then some other leader would have brought Germany back on its feet and reignited the war.
4
deleted
· 8 years ago
If I have left anything unclear, do ask, or if you want to prove me wrong, please do so.
Where does morality come from? Is it just instinct? If nothing matters and there is no god, then the law is completely arbitrary. Is right and wrong decided by authority? Yes. But if humans are the highest authority, why can't I shoot you? Slavery was legal in the past, so that must have been fine, right? Wrong.
There is a God, the ultimate authority, who has set instructions into every one of us on how He wants us to behave. This is the feeling of morality. I can say what is right and wrong because my Creator God has given me laws through the Bible. Atheists can try and say what is right or wrong, but they would have no foundational reason as to what they think it is right or wrong.
I believe we all micro-evolved from the first Man, Adam, and that is how we are now so diverse (skin colour, etc). I agree all humans are equal (of the same kind, homo sapiens sapiens).
Yes, atheism Is simply not believing in an intelligent supernatural designer (God). But without evolution, there is no basis for this belief. They could say 'we don't have the answer', sure.
But think of this, atheists. Do you know everything? Of course not. Do you know half of everything? No. Let's say you know half of everything. Then is it possible for God to exist in the other half you don't know of?
deleted
· 8 years ago
I don't think either of us can convince the other. I don't believe we need a god to instill a sense of right and wrong in us, and you do, and that's fine. Regarding your argument about our knowledge, it is true the human race does not know everything, far from it. It is also true that there may be a god that we have not yet discovered or proven scientifically. However, until it is proven a god exists, I'll continue to believe that there is none. Once there is hard evidence that I find compelling enough, I will accept the god hypothesis.
Sorry to interrupt but i just wanted to add to why black people are black. As you know, Black people came from Africa, where it is blazing hot in most parts so this causes the skin to produce more Melanin. Melanin provides protection from the sun but makes causes your skin to go black. Many scientists have believed that lighter skin gradually arose in Europeans starting around 40,000 years ago, soon after people left tropical Africa for Europe's higher latitudes. The hunter-gatherer's dark skin pushes this date forward to only 7,000 years ago, suggesting that at least some humans lived considerably longer than thought in Europe before losing the dark pigmentation that evolved under Africa's sun.
Here's a link to my source: http://www.livescience.com/42838-european-hunter-gatherer-genome-sequenced.html
The fuck does it matter whether you "respect" something that you have no fucking clue of? Science is not about belief. Hardly any scientific theory is as widely accepted among peers as evolution, and your "not believing in it" deserves about as much respect as if you didn't believe in fucking gravity, because bollywood movies prove the theory wrong. This is not exactly a discussion on a level playing field, so yeah, really, we can leave it at that..
Okay. Gravity is observational science. You can test it right here, right now, in your backyard. Evolution is historical science. You cannot test it at all. Historical science can only be done using facts we can observe today, like fossils, human records (writing), and other stuff. This leaves a level of uncertainty, because we cannot know for sure what happened in the past unless we were there to observe it. Evolution and Creation are both world views people use to explain how the facts got there, and neither one is observational science. If evolution is fact, do a test in the lab and repeat it!
Sure, micro-evolution is observational science and can be tested in our lifetime, but macro-evolution cannot be tested, so it is historical science, same as Creation.
A good portion of the world's leading scientists Are Creationists!
"A good portion of the world's leading scientists Are Creationists!" - You are an idiot. That's not meant as an insult, but purely descriptive. It's observable and verifiable, it's science, bitch!.
.
As to this little "historic vs. observed science" shtick: "This attempt to divide science in two—historic and "observed"—combined with the attempts to effectively erase the past and limit the sorts of questions that scientists can ask, results in a completely incoherent mess." - from http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/02/dear-creation-museum-all-science-is-historical-science-heres-why/
I think it's idiotic to imply that we need religion to have a sense of morality or "right and wrong" there are countless examples of atheist or agnostic people and even religious people who have done good simply because they thought it was the right thing to do, and not because they thought a deity was watching them do it.
Also I'd say religion held back science historically because of the dark ages.
The Dark Ages refers to a period of roughly 1,000 years during which the science of the ancient Greek and Roman societies was forgotten, discouraged, and suppressed by medieval Christians.
but for the sake of an equal opinion
120'0's-Bishop Robert Grossetest and Father Roger Bacon write scientific method
1700's Father Prokop Divis first harness electricity for mankind
1600's-Father Ferdinand Verbeist invented first steam powered car
1800's Father Anyos Jedlik--invents world's first electric motor
1800's Father Gregor Mendel discovers Genetics
1800's-Father Jean Baptiste Carnoy. Discovers Cytology (the study of cells)
1900's Father Roberto Busa-discovers computer science, invents hypertext
Basically all social behavior has been developed as result of evolutionary processes. That is why the essence of all religions is pretty much equal. The differences are mainly the way they distribute power and how they protect the have-it-alls from the havent-got-shits.
Sure atheists can be genuinely nice people just because they wanted to, but they have no reason to be. It may help their social status and comfort, but so what? It may help them have a family, but so what? It may prolong the survival of humanity, but so what? If there is no afterlife, and you are not accountable to anyone beyond simple humans, why should you be good and not be bad? You could be as mean as you want, and it wouldn't make a dent in the universe. There is no consequence for your actions.
But there is a God, who will judge you justly. You are accountable to Him, so if He says you must be good, you should be good. Or you will face consequences. He has given us free will to make our own choices, but some people have gone their own way and invented religions and atheism in an attempt to justify their actions, which by God's laws are wrong. They try to hide from the consequences, and in doing so they fool themselves into believing there is no God.
also what makes you think christianity isn't a religion invented "in an attempt to justify their actions." We as atheists, do not follow God's rules. We do not stone gays, we do not demean disabled people and we certainly do not advocate slavery. Instead we follow this thing called Human law. If you kill someone, You will have a lifetime in jail. sources are here: http://www.salon.com/2014/05/31/11_kinds_of_bible_verses_christians_love_to_ignore_partner/
Granted, atheists supposedly acting under human law are currently almost certainly committing genocide and widely suspected of profiteering off of forced organ donation by the practitioners of Falun Gong in China. Neither religion nor lack thereof makes a person - or a government - good. On the point of people inherently disliking chaos and hatred, I'm with geluregis - it's not a specific belief system thing, it's a human thing.
Yes, why not just let everyone die? Why not throw the order keeping soctiey together right out the window in favour of ''evolution''. In fact, let's not heal anyone anymore. And when 80% of the population then succumbs to a horrible disease, the survivors can pat themselves on the back stating they did it for ''evolution''. Fuck science and modern medicine right?
At this rate the earth is being overpopulated and will eventually run out of resources at the rate humans are multiplying. But sure I mean fuck nature and the natural life cycle if I never have to lose anybody. Its the harsh reality of the world and people who can't accept that. Better the people who aren't meant to survive to pass away then our future generations fighting and killing each other over resources. Now don't think that i hate modern medicine and all that. Modern medicine is a great thing but its going to create big problems down the road.
Together we can cooparate and work towards a solution. Every single day great scientists are coming forwards with amazing discoveries. If we dedicate ourselves to improving the earth we can make real progress. Instead of, you know, commiting mass genocide through neglect.
As true as I think this is I can't in good heart say that I think we should let others die off because my sister would've died at birth without modern science.
This is a common misconception of evolution. Its actually not the survival of the strongest, its the survival of the fittest, meaning the overall adaption to outside factors. Modern medicine is prolonging the life span of the species and enlarges the population, so its evolutionary progress.
Every time I see a post like this I wonder if you could see life the other way, without medicine, and you wouldn't have existed or would have died at age 2 or would have lost your husband/wife when they were 20... would you still feel feel the same way.
you wouldnt say that medicine is stopping the process of human revolution by saving the weak ones if one of the weak ones was your family or friend, would you now?
Modern medicine is not the only reason for over population. Food supply is also a big one. However, unless you all are cool with dying of starvation and dysentery (Oregon trail style) We should seek better solutions. Smaller families, sustainable infrastructure that is less damaging to the environment, more effective means of birth control..to name a few.
That's not really true. Humans haven't stopped evolving, for one. Evolution is a change or adaption in a group over time, this is continuing. What usually happens is that a change in the environment quickly kills off all but a certain adaption, leading to dead ends. But, with medicine and technology keeping so many more adaptations alive, we may eventually branch out into multiple surviving lines/multiple species (millions of years from now).
Well, if they haven't died yet they probably won't. They're not going to suddenly give up modern science because they're vegan. And honestly, under most of the same conditions that would kill off vegans, meat eaters would die too since the main scenario for thay is either "holy shit asteroid" or "holy shit plague."
I agree, we should definitelly let people like Stepehn Hawking die. Would definitelly do a number for humanity as such.
sarcasm aside, what kind of a fucking idiot are you? Disease doesn't differentiate. HIV will kill tough guys, small babies, weak people, idiots, geniuses, whoever it infects. Are you suggesting we should let a few pairs worth of RNA dictate our future as a species?
Or are you suggesting we should set a limit and only offer medical help to those people who are, by some artificial standards, better than others? Do you also wear a funny mustache and plan to invade Poland??
How is it stopping the process of human evolution? Altering it by keeping the population of healthy humans greater than without modern medicine does not stop mutations occurring in the non-weak humans. If anything, it increases the amount of mutations going on at any one time. The concentration of mutations may be lower, since more people are alive, but overall the biological evolution is not being stopped.
Evolution happens when organisms with slightly (usually better) alterations reproduce, while the weaker organisms die off. Saving the real ones and them reproducing prevents the correct flow of evolution.
What I would like to put forward, is to simply remove the vast majority of warning labels out there and just let natural selection do its thing.
Natures way of weeding out the idiots
*themselves
*modern
*medicine
Just trying to help.
An instance of the first phenomenon: It's theorized that Seasonal Affective Disorder and ADHD, while extremely disadvantageous in our current environment, are potentially prized survival traits in a hunter-gatherer society. SAD ensures that you stay in safe areas and conserve calories during leaner months, and ADHD is absolutely beautiful both for noticing as many small phenomena as possible - for instance, the slight movement of a bird you might be interested in eating - and for focusing directly on the hunt for the two minutes you need to.
Here's another one to consiter:
I've heard that about 1 in 20 humans are genuinely "nocturnal" or have very nocturnal like traits, if you want to argue the diurnal cycle of humans.
It's hypothesized that it's because the extended family groups of early humans was about 20. It stands to reason you need one to stand watch at night.
Without Christianity, no offense to anyone, we would be much more knowledgeable and intellectually evolved, as well as we'd know much more about history
Would you care to explain how evolution makes peole less kind and peaceful, and more racist?
Hitler believed in evolution. He thought Jews were the least evolved, so he killed 6 million of them to further human evolution. That was not kind and was very racist. He basically started World War Two, so that is not peaceful. Evolution, which is the foundation of atheism, is not peaceful nor kind, and it encourages racism.
There is a God, the ultimate authority, who has set instructions into every one of us on how He wants us to behave. This is the feeling of morality. I can say what is right and wrong because my Creator God has given me laws through the Bible. Atheists can try and say what is right or wrong, but they would have no foundational reason as to what they think it is right or wrong.
But think of this, atheists. Do you know everything? Of course not. Do you know half of everything? No. Let's say you know half of everything. Then is it possible for God to exist in the other half you don't know of?
Here's a link to my source: http://www.livescience.com/42838-european-hunter-gatherer-genome-sequenced.html
Sure, micro-evolution is observational science and can be tested in our lifetime, but macro-evolution cannot be tested, so it is historical science, same as Creation.
A good portion of the world's leading scientists Are Creationists!
.
As to this little "historic vs. observed science" shtick: "This attempt to divide science in two—historic and "observed"—combined with the attempts to effectively erase the past and limit the sorts of questions that scientists can ask, results in a completely incoherent mess." - from http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/02/dear-creation-museum-all-science-is-historical-science-heres-why/
The Dark Ages refers to a period of roughly 1,000 years during which the science of the ancient Greek and Roman societies was forgotten, discouraged, and suppressed by medieval Christians.
but for the sake of an equal opinion
120'0's-Bishop Robert Grossetest and Father Roger Bacon write scientific method
1700's Father Prokop Divis first harness electricity for mankind
1600's-Father Ferdinand Verbeist invented first steam powered car
1800's Father Anyos Jedlik--invents world's first electric motor
1800's Father Gregor Mendel discovers Genetics
1800's-Father Jean Baptiste Carnoy. Discovers Cytology (the study of cells)
1900's Father Roberto Busa-discovers computer science, invents hypertext
But there is a God, who will judge you justly. You are accountable to Him, so if He says you must be good, you should be good. Or you will face consequences. He has given us free will to make our own choices, but some people have gone their own way and invented religions and atheism in an attempt to justify their actions, which by God's laws are wrong. They try to hide from the consequences, and in doing so they fool themselves into believing there is no God.
*looks at medical history*
...wait
Homo Veganus
They'll die off after ten days and there will be a museum and shit
sarcasm aside, what kind of a fucking idiot are you? Disease doesn't differentiate. HIV will kill tough guys, small babies, weak people, idiots, geniuses, whoever it infects. Are you suggesting we should let a few pairs worth of RNA dictate our future as a species?
Or are you suggesting we should set a limit and only offer medical help to those people who are, by some artificial standards, better than others? Do you also wear a funny mustache and plan to invade Poland??